<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 13:27, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Was there any oldest supported libstdc++ version previously documented?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this might be the only place we talk about it: <a href="https://clang.llvm.org/docs/Toolchain.html#libstdc-gnu">https://clang.llvm.org/docs/Toolchain.html#libstdc-gnu</a><br></div><div> </div><div>"Clang supports a wide range of versions of libstdc++, from around version 4.2 onwards, and will implicitly work around some bugs in older versions of libstdc++."</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
How's this compare (is there any insight to be gained by such<br>
comparison?) with the oldest supported gcc?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you mean the oldest GCC that we support as a host compiler? That's GCC 5.1 (<a href="https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#host-c-toolchain-both-compiler-and-standard-library">https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#host-c-toolchain-both-compiler-and-standard-library</a>), so bumping our minimum libstdc++ to 4.9 brings these closer together.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:01 PM Nathan Sidwell via cfe-dev<br>
<<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I came across a couple of clang workarounds for old libstdc++ issues.<br>
> One of them seems good for removal, by documenting the oldest supported<br>
> libstdc++ as 4.9, which is what <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D100465" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D100465</a> does.<br>
><br>
> The other is more recent, and proposing to keep that (see<br>
> <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D100469" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D100469</a>)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Here are a few more that we may be able to remove:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp#L6568">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp#L6568</a><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp#L859">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp#L859</a><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp#L1524">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp#L1524</a><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> any objections on the oldest libstdc++ version?<br>
><br>
> nathan<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Nathan Sidwell<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cfe-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>